As Third Party in Interest, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers and Blacksmiths was advised of the pendency of this dispute, but it chose not to file a Submission with the Board.
This claim protests the Carrier's August 20, 1995 assignment of Boilermaker J. L. Thomas to apply the cab floor, door thresholds, ceiling insulation and perforated metal ceiling panels to Locomotive 8054 at the Huntington Locomotive Shop. The dispute involves Carrier's use of the Incidental Work Rule to assign work that has admittedly been historically performed by Carmen to employees outside the craft.
The Organization argues that such work is reserved to its craft under the language of Rule 154 (a) and (b). It contends that the Carrier may not rely upon the Incidental Work Rule in this case because the work in issue far exceeded the two hour time limit for the assignment of a simple task. The Organization relies upon a signed statement from Boilermaker Thomas specifying that his assignment on August 20, 1995 included continuing to apply the cab floor, door thresholds, insulation to the ceiling, and fabricating and applying perforated metal ceiling panels to the unit in question, and that such work took him six hours to perform.
The Carrier contends that this job assignment was permissible under the Incidental Work Rule because it involved a simple task that took less than two hours to perform. It relies upon a questionnaire filled out by the Relief Supervisor who made the job assignment indicating that the door and ceiling panel work was incidental to the overall repairs on the unit and took one hour to perform.
A review of the record reveals that the claim encompasses the application of the cab floor as well as work performed on the door and ceiling panels. There is no dispute that this work has historically been performed by Carmen. The Carrier's evidence as to the length of time it took to perform the disputed job assignment relates only to the door and ceiling panel aspects, and does not encompass the application of the cab floor. Because the Boilermaker involved specified that the disputed assignment took him six hours to perform on August 20, 1995, the Carrier's reliance on the Incidental Work Rule is misplaced. That Rule sets an outside time limit of two hours for the performance of a simple task. Because this assignment exceeded that time limit, it is not protected by the Incidental Work Rule, and violated Rule 154 (a) and (b) of the Agreement. Form 1 Award No. 13410
With respect to the appropriate remedy, it has been firmly established by the Board that the pro rata rate is the proper rate of compensation for work not performed, and is the appropriate measure of value of work lost. Second Division Award 6359. Accordingly, we direct that the Claimant be compensated six hours for the lost work opportunity on August 20, 1995 at his pro rata rate of pay.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.